The parents of Kate Steinle — a woman shot dead in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant — cannot sue that “sanctuary city” for having quietly set the shooter free less than three months before the 2015 tragedy, a federal appeals court ruled this week.
The appellate decision notes that the case of Steinle, 32 — for three years a focus of President Trump’s strong criticism of sanctuary cities — is “undeniably tragic.”
Still, San Francisco can’t be penalized for Steinle’s death at the hands of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the parents’ wrongful death suit.
San Francisco’s City Attorney’s Office had argued successfully that the city was not liable for the actions of a former inmate, even though the city had sprung Garcia Zarate, who had a record of at least seven felony convictions, without telling immigration authorities.
The city also argued successfully that its sheriff had not been compelled, under federal law, to alert immigration before the dismissal of an old marijuana charge triggered Garcia Zarate’s release.
The feds had a deportation order lodged against Garcia Zarate at the time, but the municipality’s sanctuary city laws limited its cooperation with immigration officials.
Less than three months after he was freed, on July 1, 2015, Garcia Zarate, who was homeless, opened fire on San Francisco’s Pier 14. He claimed he pulled the trigger accidentally after finding the stolen gun on the pier.
A bullet ricocheted off the pier’s concrete and fatally struck Steinle in the back as she walked with her father.
In November 2017, a jury agreed that the shooting was accidental and acquitted Garcia Zarate of murder, convicting him only of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Garcia Zarate has appealed that conviction. He remains in prison on federal firearms charges for the deadly gun, a .40-caliber sig Sauer P239 that, four days before the shooting, had been stolen in San Francisco from the car of a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger.
The Steinle parents have also sued the Bureau of Land Management; that case is pending.
It is not clear if the parents will appeal this week’s decision.
